Blue Cross Blue Shield Of Kansas Explains Health Policy Decisions (BCBS blames Obamacare)

WIBW Kansas ^ | 10/31/2013 | Melissa Brunner

[tobyhill]

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas is defending a decision that has more than 9400 Kansans looking for new health insurance policies by the first of the year.

BCBS spokesperson Mary Beth Chambers confirms that about 35 percent of the company's approximately 27,000 individual contracts - or around 9450 customers - did not meet requirements to be grandfathered under the Affordable Care Act.

The ACA requires that all plans sold after January 1, 2014 include essential health benefits and no-cost preventative care.

[Delta 21]

Just obeying the Law of the Land .

[Shannon]

Sounds good but didn't big insurance have a hand in writing this whole mess?

The other day I was reading, somewhere, that there's a clause in the non-Affordable Care Act that covers insurance companies if their loses exceed a certain percent. No matter what happens, they win.

[freekitty]

I am wondering who are the ones who are able to keep their insurance. I am also wondering exactly who is really exempt from Obamacare.

[tobyhill]

You nailed it! This is going to be the “death spiral” of Obamacare, when insurance and Obama turn on each other.
The insurance companies are now realizing that they aren't getting 30 million new customers as promised and are more than likely going to have a net decrease of customers.

[Bernard]

Just obeying the Law of the Land .

SETTLED law of the land, thank you very much!

[McGavin999]

The end result of all this is NOT single payer, it’s going to be a new form of insurance pool by uninsured people that will exclude the insurance companies.

[plain talk]

Obama -— You can keep your plan ... that is except for 35% of you.

[DAC21]

Apparently these experts are of the bad apple variety.

[Mouton]

They sure did have a hand in drafting the laws. That maybe the reason few if any of them fought the law. In fact, they used it to their benefit IMO. In Florida for example, the tax free mutual Blue Cross rechartered themselves, after massive bribes, er donations, to the state legislature to remain tax free but to allow them to be involved in owning for gain enterprises. They moved oaver a billion of surpluses from their medical insurance operations into other areas. What are those other areas? Well, they were to be the insurance for those who lost their coverage due to the constraints of the health care law...so they got you going and coming all because they “had no choice due to the new law.” Meanwhile, the senior executives in the tax free mutual company continue to draw multi million salaries supposedly doing the best for the owners of the company, the policy holders, when in actuallity they are “doing the policy holders” and all that implies.

[Repeal The 17th]

“...The ACA requires all plans to include no-cost preventative care...”
-
For all of those who still believe that such things can be “free”.

[newnhdad]

what a bunch of racists, sexist homophobes...

[Kansas58]

Not exactly a WIN if the government promises to help you “cut your loses”
IT IS STILL A LOSS to the insurance company.

[grania]

no-cost preventative care

Why should that be covered by insurance? Insurance is for stuff that isn't forseen and would "break the bank" if it happened. For insurance to function, it has to be risk vs reward for the insurance company and the insured, by item.

The flaw isn't new. HMOs cover all of this dogooder stuff. It just doesn't make sense from a health and decision making standpoint to have someone else paying for your checkups.

It's one of the many reasons I've given up on medical care.

[Junior_G]

The other day I was reading, somewhere, that there's a clause in the non-Affordable Care Act that covers insurance companies if their loses exceed a certain percent. No matter what happens, they win.

That is true, but I believe the loss protection for insurance companies is only in effect for the first 3 years. The idea is that insurance companies are going to get absolutely soaked in the individual market since they are no longer allowed to actually underwrite for risk, but that they'll somehow figure out how to make a profit anyway by the 3-year mark.

[Mike Darancette]

Yes Insurance companies had input into the original language but then HHS made the final regulation so restrictive that even many grandfathered policies wouldn’t qualify.

Up to almost 80% of a companies losses on an exchange can be reimbursed (excess profits can be captured too) and I expect there will be a big bill at the end of this year. The insurance companies will have to adjust their premiums for the next year which will make things worse.

[Kansas58]

As a general rule, ALL of the “Blues” and United Health Care stand as the strongest allies of Obamacare, from the beginning.
You must understand that Blue Cross is heavily into the teachers unions and the State and Municipal governments and they tend to be rather liberal. Also, though, take into account that Blue of Kansas is still mad that Sebelius blocked their planned merger with Anthem Insurance, which resulted in HIGHER PRICES at Blue for a number of reasons.

Please do NOT jump on “all the insurance companies” as this is what Obama and Sebelius want! I agree that the industry should have fought harder, but why fall for the “divide and conquer” strategy that the Left is using?

This is the fault of the Democrat Party. Leave that “plenty of blame to go around” nonsense for the DU types.

[Delta 21]

I dont even think that insurance of any kind should be legal. For private business or government mandated.

[vladimir998]

Well, that shipped sailed a long time ago.

[Delta 21]

Goes to show where the slippery slope leads.